"There is, by the way, another argument which I remember was once put
to me by a friend, and which struck me forcibly at the time.
"My friend, who is something of a scholar, and has not forgotten his
Latin, quoted these lines from Virgil:--
Ille pedum melior motu fretusque iuventa;
Hic membris et mole valens; sed tarda trementi
Genua labant, vastos quatit aeger anhelitus artus[3].
"These verses describe the fighting qualities of two heroes, who are
about to enter the ring.
"No one, I suppose, would seriously maintain that they ought to be
handicapped, that one of them should be made to concede some points in
which he is superior, that is to say some of the chances in his favour,
while the other retains all that he can muster. And yet can we not
easily imagine two men meeting to fight a duel, one of whom has in his
favour every chance but one, advantage of reach, dexterity, speed, and
swordsmanship, while the other relies only on sound condition and great
staying power?
"In an unequal combat such as this, what can the latter do but tire his
opponent out, get him thoroughly well blown, and so reduce the balance
of advantage, which until then tells with full force against him? The
other man who thereupon calls for a truce is practically asking his
antagonist to forgo his superiority of sound wind and limb, while he,
so far from giving up his own advantages of reach, dexterity, and
science, has every intention of making the most of them when the fight
begins afresh.
"Then again, the staying power which you handicap, is very likely
derived from a well developed chest which incidentally offers a larger
target to the adverse point; the greater vigour may be due to the fact
that its owner is thick-set, with heavy muscular limbs which make his
movements slow and ponderous. Why recognise the inequality of the match
in the one case, and disregard it in the other?